3 ms·
I took a later version of this class and I couldn't get into it. I thought I'd love AI, as the idea is extremely appealing to me, but it seemed to be mostly pro
by personjerry 10y ago
I took a later version of this class and I couldn't get into it. I thought I'd love AI, as the idea is extremely appealing to me, but it seemed to be mostly probability and formulaic work. Which is fine, if that's the way AI is, but I would've preferred if they'd explained why the algorithms chosen are what they are, and how we got to them--and what other methods have been explored.
As it is, the class just skims over a variety of techniques and ways to implement them, lacking depth (such as what disadvantages and advantages there are in practice or where they have been used in the real world).
- jxy 10y agoThis sounds like exactly what it should be as an intro-to-* course. You are given the names and terminologies and the ability (Math! Yes, you do need it.) and freedom to explore any deeper materials on your own.
- personjerry 10y agoHmm, I always thought that this style of teaching was a good way to lose a lot of students' interest. A math professor I had was insistent on showing the thinking that led to a proof, which not only made it easier to remember, but also made the study vastly more interesting and engaging. From what I can gather, his technique has made him quite a popular professor amongst the students at the University of Waterloo, so I suspect this is quite an effective alternate style of "intro" course, although I recognize that it limits the breadth of material.